Obama-Biden vs McCain-Palin

[MWB]

Obama and Ayers:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/e ... yers_N.htm

Ayers and Obama have moved in some of the same circles:

•In 1995, Ayers hosted a brunch for Obama, who was running for the Illinois Senate.

The ad says this meeting launched Obama's political career. Quentin Young, a physician who was there, says it was a typical Hyde Park event and to imply otherwise is "guilt by simultaneously being in the same place."

•In 1997, they were on a juvenile justice panel sponsored by the University of Chicago. They were on a 2002 panel on intellectualism that was co-sponsored by the Chicago Public Library.

•In 1997, the Chicago Tribune published a blurb from Obama about books he was reading. Obama said he was reading Ayers' A Kind and Just Parent: The Children of Juvenile Court.

•From 1999-2002, both men were on the board of the Woods Fund, a Chicago foundation that makes grants to arts and civic groups. Obama left the board in 2002; Ayers remains on it.

Rezko:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/14/us/po ... oref=login

Back in the 1990s, Mr. Rezko’s office was adorned with framed photos of candidates he viewed as up-and-comers. Among them was Barack Obama, a state legislator whose first campaign donations included $2,000 from Mr. Rezko’s companies. As Mr. Obama built a career that carried him to the Senate in 2004, Mr. Rezko was there with him, holding fund-raisers and rallying support.

Wright:
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4443788

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor for the last 20 years at the Trinity United Church of Christ on Chicago's south side, has a long history of what even Obama's campaign aides concede is "inflammatory rhetoric," including the assertion that the United States brought on the 9/11 attacks with its own "terrorism."

Michelle Obama:
Considering that Wright has been their pastor for the past 20 years and espouses similar anti-american rhetoric; her "never been proud of America until now" comment can't be dismissed as a Biden-esque gaffe.

The summary of Ayers, as you posted, is this:
He held a brunch for Obama (most would say his 2004 DNC speech launched his campaign). They worked on the same boards together. Obama read his book.

Rezko likes Obama.... many do.

I know the history of Wright, what I don't know is how deep his relationship with him was, how often he attended church, what relation still exists.

[Kicksave]

Also, I don't think it's a bad thing when a candidate changes his mind on an issue. In it's purist form t shows open mindedness and an ability to correct ones position in the light of new information or changing circumstances. Certainly if that position changes because of donations from special interests groups etc, now THAT would be an issue.

On your third point, I'm very concerned with whom presidential candidates associate themselves. These individuals will be in charge of picking cabinet members who will have a significant impact on our country (Paulson as Treasury Sec for instance). McCains choice of Pailn concerns me, as does nearly every choice from Obama.

Guess I got some bad info on the 2003 bill.... damn Gore and his internet.

I agree with you on candidate's changing their opinions with the right reasons in mind. Unfortunately, that's just a very difficult thing to tell, especially if a lot of those changes come when it's time to run for office.

It's also very difficult to tell how "associations" with others pan out. Everyone is associated with people, in one way or another, that they would rather not be. The fact is, McCain went out of his way to associate himself with Palin.

On another note, I'm not a McCain hater. My opinion is very similar to that of Draftnik. My vote was up for grabs not too long ago. However, McCain's pandering has pushed me over the edge and raises many serious questions about what we'd get if he was put into office. Yes, everyone panders, but McCain was always viewed as fighting that. Not anymore. Does he really agree with some/most of Palin's views? Does he think she's as crazy as many of us do? Was it a choice that he wanted, or was he just doing what he was told?

I think it's pretty obvious why he chose Palin, and that was to balance the ticket to get the rest of the party on board and to get some of those Hillary votes.

McCain, to me, seems like he's changed his views a little this time around just to have the opportunity to get elected. He didn't cater to what the party wanted the last go around and they chose GWB. He learned from that experience and is starting to play the game a bit more. Reputation alone doesn't get you elected anymore, you need to cater to those in power.

The thing that scares me about Obama is it seems he's been catering his entire career. He has yet take a stance on anything. He's been apart of his church for 20 years and as soon as it wasn't advantageous for him to be apart of that church - he dropped it like it was nothing. Like this guy hasn't been spewing hate-speech for the past 20 years.

I don't blame 100% of what has gone on in Washington on GWB. Some of it, yes. I agreed we had to go and attack Iraq, but after a while, we needed to back off and we didn't. I do believe he did what he thought would keep this country safe. Whether you want to admit it or not, we haven't been attacked since.

I don't agree with everything on the Republican side of things, I agree with much of what Draftnik has said. I've only started paying closer attention to politics this year and I'm still lost on a lot of things. This thread has done a lot in helping me gather info from both sides to form my own opinions.

Here's hoping that Ron Paul can have a chance in 4 years.

[Hockeynut!]

On your third point, I'm very concerned with whom presidential candidates associate themselves.

What are your views on McCain's association with Charles Keating, including his acceptance of hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts, going on vacations with him, getting into business with him and his involvement in the savings and loan scandal that rocked the industry?

What are your views on McCain's friendship with felon and G. Gordon Liddy?
In 1998, Liddy's home was the site of a McCain fundraiser. Over the years, he has made at least four contributions totaling $5,000 to the senator's campaigns--including $1,000 this year.

Last November, McCain went on his radio show. Liddy greeted him as "an old friend," and McCain sounded like one. "I'm proud of you, I'm proud of your family," he gushed. "It's always a pleasure for me to come on your program, Gordon, and congratulations on your continued success and adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great."

Or what about wining and dining on a yacht with con man Raffaello Follieri?

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080929/berman_ames

I really don't see Obama's tenuous relationships with Ayres/Rezco as anything worse than McCain's relationships.

[GaryRissling]

The summary of Ayers, as you posted, is this:
He held a brunch for Obama (most would say his 2004 DNC speech launched his campaign). They worked on the same boards together. Obama read his book.

Rezko likes Obama.... many do.

I know the history of Wright, what I don't know is how deep his relationship with him was, how often he attended church, what relation still exists.

I said earlier, his relationship with Ayers isn't that strong, but still deserved attention simply in the context of his other associations.

Since you're engaged in this discussion, I thought you would actually read the NY Times pieces on Rezko - here's some more:

Last fall, Mr. Rezko was indicted on federal charges of business fraud and influence peddling involving the administration of Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich of Illinois, whose picture was also on Mr. Rezko’s wall. Since then, Mr. Obama, a Democrat, has had to answer questions about a land deal with Mr. Rezko’s wife, Rita, and about other ties to him.

Since early June, Mr. Obama has given to charity more than $21,000 in donations that his Senate campaign had received from Rezko associates now linked to the federal inquiries. He gave away $11,500 from Mr. Rezko himself last fall.

Mr. Obama says he never did any favors for Mr. Rezko, who raised about $150,000 for his campaigns over the years and was once one of the most powerful men in Illinois. There is no sign that Mr. Obama, who declined to be interviewed for this article, did anything improper.

As for Wright; he has been Obama's minister for 20 years, officiated his wedding, baptized his children, and served on the Obama campaign's African American Religious Leadership Committee until he was let go after this controversy.

[ExPatriatePen]

MWB,

Is there anything about Obama that you don't like or that concerns you?

[Troy Loney]

MWB,

Is there anything about Obama that you don't like or that concerns you?

I'm concerned that he might be too divisive. I think partisianship is too strong in this country and prevents effective leadership.

[MWB]

MWB,

Is there anything about Obama that you don't like or that concerns you?

Yes. But I don't think going through each candidate's associations does a lot of good, because we'll never really know how deep they go. That goes for both sides and I don't understand why people pick out those associations while ignoring the associations of the other side.

I'm concerned about Obama's lack of experience. I'm concerned about how effective he'll be at reaching across the aisle. As with all politicians, I'm concerned about how he panders.

I voted for Clinton in the primary, so Obama wasn't even my first choice. Really, I don't want to come across as an Obama apologist, i just hate some of the arguments that are made against him because I think there are more pressing and legitimate ones to consider.

[HomerPenguin]

imagine what "the kind of people who "shook down" the Penguins over the new Arena" would do if they had the power of the Presidency behind them...As bad as the current administration is, that would be far worse.

I have a hard time imagining what could be "far worse" than the current administration. But since they've proven that they can't handle the office, and the "the kind of people who "shook down" the Penguins over the new Arena" haven't had a turn yet, I say let's give them a try and see what happens.

Of course, that assumes that Obama has surrounded himself with "the kind of people who "shook down" the Penguins over the new Arena," which I think assumes facts not in evidence, but YMMV.

[MWB]

I said earlier, his relationship with Ayers isn't that strong, but still deserved attention simply in the context of his other associations.

Since you're engaged in this discussion, I thought you would actually read the NY Times pieces on Rezko - here's some more:


As for Wright; he has been Obama's minister for 20 years, officiated his wedding, baptized his children, and served on the Obama campaign's African American Religious Leadership Committee until he was let go after this controversy.

About Rezko, I was being glib once again. All politicians have these types of ties with donors who are seen as negative. Is it good? No, of course not. However, in my opinion, it's not a reason to indict Obama, even in the context of other associations, perceived or otherwise.

Here's the thing about Wright... I was a member of a church for 10 years with a pastor who officiated my wedding and baptized my two kids. I rarely went to church. I know next to nothing about him, except for a couple very brief conversations. Does that mean this is what Obama is like with Wright? I don't know, but I think it's possible.

[ams]

I like it when a politician is flexible enough to take in new information and change views, but McCain's conversions between his failed campaign and now seem a bit questionable...

If only people had been so okay with rational and intelligent re-consideration of positions in 2004, the term "flip flop" might have never gained the unfortunate traction it did. Every time I hear that phrase in a political discussion, I retch just a little.

[KG]

Current electoral situation

http://news.yahoo.com/election/2008/das ... 4JzFpsnwcF

Not looking good for McCain...

I have been saying for several months now...The Democrats have the election on a tee...If they don't win this election then they really should never win...Everything is pointing against the Republicans and McCain...

Not looking good...

[GaryRissling]

On your third point, I'm very concerned with whom presidential candidates associate themselves.

What are your views on McCain's association with Charles Keating, including his acceptance of hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts, going on vacations with him, getting into business with him and his involvement in the savings and loan scandal that rocked the industry?

What are your views on McCain's friendship with felon and G. Gordon Liddy?
In 1998, Liddy's home was the site of a McCain fundraiser. Over the years, he has made at least four contributions totaling $5,000 to the senator's campaigns--including $1,000 this year.

Last November, McCain went on his radio show. Liddy greeted him as "an old friend," and McCain sounded like one. "I'm proud of you, I'm proud of your family," he gushed. "It's always a pleasure for me to come on your program, Gordon, and congratulations on your continued success and adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great."

Or what about wining and dining on a yacht with con man Raffaello Follieri?

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080929/berman_ames

I really don't see Obama's tenuous relationships with Ayres/Rezco as anything worse than McCain's relationships.

Let's not forget that McCain has had 30 more years to forge is history. It should concern you that you can even compare the skeletons-in-the-closet of a 45 year old Obama and a 72 year old McCain. And this is the best you can do.

McCain's association with Keating and the acceptance of Keating's gifts was an example of poor judgment; since that time, however, McCain took action by making campaign finance reform a top priority and eventually passed McCain-Feingold. Now, Obama has received $125,000 just in the past two years from Fannie Mae, and has opposed the regulations proposed by McCain and Bush that may have prevented our economic catastrophe. This seems just as big of an exercise in poor judgment.

I have only found the two encounters you mentioned between Liddy and McCain and neither are described in much detail; but at any rate the article states the comparison between McCain's loose association with Libby and of Obama and Ayers. Both are loose associations.

The last association you tried to make between McCain and Follieri is laughable. He met him once for his birthday party before it was known that the guy was a con-man.

[Troy Loney]

yeah, and that really bothers me.

elect this guy just because he's a democrat and bush was an idiot. thats terrible

I understand this line of thought, but Bush was more of a stooge than an idiot. I'm sure they let him see some of the reports and he was allowed to color them in with his crayons when everyone was finished reading them. but he is the quintessential stooge imo. He was propped up by a group of idealogues that used his name and electability to put him in office and have him do whatever they wanted him to do.

This had to have been a relatively large portion of the republican that were on board with this and thats why i think the Democrats should win. Bush wasn't simply a one man wrecking crew, there were a lot of people steering the ship behind the scenes from the republican party.

[GaryRissling]

About Rezko, I was being glib once again. All politicians have these types of ties with donors who are seen as negative. Is it good? No, of course not. However, in my opinion, it's not a reason to indict Obama, even in the context of other associations, perceived or otherwise.

Here's the thing about Wright... I was a member of a church for 10 years with a pastor who officiated my wedding and baptized my two kids. I rarely went to church. I know next to nothing about him, except for a couple very brief conversations. Does that mean this is what Obama is like with Wright? I don't know, but I think it's possible.

Not all politicians have ties to people who are indicted for business fraud and influence peddling to a governor.

I bet your pastor didn't inspire you to write a book ("the Audacity of Hope"), and I'll bet too that you didn't hire your pastor to work for you. And I bet that you didn't use your church/pastor to establish and reinforce political connections.

[Hockeynut!]

Let's not forget that McCain has had 30 more years to forge is history. It should concern you that you can even compare the skeletons-in-the-closet of a 45 year old Obama and a 72 year old McCain. And this is the best you can do.

It took me 30 seconds to do a google search and find these connections. I'm simply pointing out that both men have "associations" with shady characters. I'd be anyone who is in the political field at a national level would have the same "connections". I just wanted you, and anyone who has of yet might be undecided, to know that when the neo cons scream "Ayres! Rezco!", that the same types of relationships can be found on McCain's side. I don't find any of it bothersome. I do find it ironic that McCain's own involvement with the saving and loan scandal is so easy whitewashed. I'd suspect if Obama was found to have been involved in something similar that the McCain supporters would be having a field day with it, especially when they take such glee in pointing out Ayres! and Rezco!

To compare McCain's involvement as one of the Keating 5 to Obama's "poor judgment" in the economic crisis... that just makes me shake my head. Especially when you factor in that McCain has taken almost $170K in donations when you include donations from lobbying firms and high level employees who worked for Fannie/Freddie. He also hired Rick Davis to manage his campaign and Davis headed a firm which fought against regulations. Among the firms' clients - Freddie & Fannie. Was that poor judgment? Probably not since you support McCain. Poor judgement only works when its someone you oppose.

People should base their vote off of ridiculous garbage like this. It's "swift boating" all over again. Vote on issues, not character assassination garbage that whackos on both sides revel in.

[GaryRissling]

Let's not forget that McCain has had 30 more years to forge is history. It should concern you that you can even compare the skeletons-in-the-closet of a 45 year old Obama and a 72 year old McCain. And this is the best you can do.

It took me 30 seconds to do a google search and find these connections. I'm simply pointing out that both men have "associations" with shady characters. I'd be anyone who is in the political field at a national level would have the same "connections". I just wanted you, and anyone who has of yet might be undecided, to know that when the neo cons scream "Ayres! Rezco!", that the same types of relationships can be found on McCain's side. I don't find any of it bothersome. I do find it ironic that McCain's own involvement with the saving and loan scandal is so easy whitewashed. I'd suspect if Obama was found to have been involved in something similar that the McCain supporters would be having a field day with it, especially when they take such glee in pointing out Ayres! and Rezco!

People should base their vote off of ridiculous garbage like this. It's "swift boating" all over again. Vote on issues, not character assassination garbage that whackos on both sides revel in.

a) McCain was investigated and exonerated from the Keating 5 scandal, though I admit it displayed poor judgment....it is easier to come to terms with it knowing that he also passed McCain-Feingold.

b) I'm saying it's not just Ayers and Rezko - It's his occupational history as a so-called "community organizer", it's the fact that he joined Jeramiah Wright's church to exploit the anger of it's congregation and using it to further his own causes. That's not garbage.

[GaryRissling]

To compare McCain's involvement as one of the Keating 5 to Obama's "poor judgment" in the economic crisis... that just makes me shake my head. Especially when you factor in that McCain has taken almost $170K in donations when you include donations from lobbying firms and high level employees who worked for Fannie/Freddie. He also hired Rick Davis to manage his campaign and Davis headed a firm which fought against regulations. Among the firms' clients - Freddie & Fannie. Was that poor judgment? Probably not since you support McCain. Poor judgement only works when its someone you oppose.

People should base their vote off of ridiculous garbage like this. It's "swift boating" all over again. Vote on issues, not character assassination garbage that whackos on both sides revel in.

Obama shares blame with a lot of congressional democrats for this mess; Bill Clinton admitted last week that congressional democrats resisted republican efforts to pass legislation (we can start another thread if we want to keep this going).

Is there anything you can point to in Obama's political past that you can hold up as something he or you can be proud of?

[MWB]

it's the fact that he joined Jeramiah Wright's church to exploit the anger of it's congregation and using it to further his own causes. That's not garbage.

Citation?

[MWB]

People should base their vote off of ridiculous garbage like this. It's "swift boating" all over again. Vote on issues, not character assassination garbage that whackos on both sides revel in.

Exactly. If people say they're voting for McCain because of what he stands for and that he has a lot of the same views, that's great. I just think it's awful when people go along with all the extreme rhetoric - whether from the left or right - and choose their president that way. Which, I believe, made the difference for Bush in 2004.

[GaryRissling]

it's the fact that he joined Jeramiah Wright's church to exploit the anger of it's congregation and using it to further his own causes. That's not garbage.

Citation?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Oba ... sonal_life
At least the Wiki references Obama's book:

Obama is a Christian whose religious views have evolved in his adult life. In The Audacity of Hope, Obama writes that he "was not raised in a religious household." He describes his mother, raised by non-religious parents (whom Obama has specified elsewhere as "non-practicing Methodists and Baptists") to be detached from religion, yet "in many ways the most spiritually awakened person that I have ever known." He describes his Kenyan father as "raised a Muslim," but a "confirmed atheist" by the time his parents met, and his Indonesian stepfather as "a man who saw religion as not particularly useful." In the book, Obama explains how, through working with black churches as a community organizer while in his twenties, he came to understand "the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change."

I am drawing a conclusion by connecting what we know; a) his job was to enrage the people he was assigned to in order to demonstrate and demand benefits en masse and b) he used black churches to further his political ends.

Also:

http://www.pickensdemocrats.org/info/Th ... 070319.htm

From Wright and others, Obama learned that part of his problem as an organizer was that he was trying to build a confederation of churches but wasn't showing up in the pews on Sunday. When pastors asked him the inevitable questions about his own spiritual life, Obama would duck them uncomfortably. A Reverend Philips put the problem to him squarely when he learned that Obama didn't attend services. "It might help your mission if you had a church home," he told Obama. "It doesn't matter where, really. What you're asking from pastors requires us to set aside some of our more priestly concerns in favor of prophesy. That requires a good deal of faith on our part. It makes us want to know just where you're getting yours from."

...

From Wright and others, Obama learned that part of his problem as an organizer was that he was trying to build a confederation of churches but wasn't showing up in the pews on Sunday. When pastors asked him the inevitable questions about his own spiritual life, Obama would duck them uncomfortably. A Reverend Philips put the problem to him squarely when he learned that Obama didn't attend services. "It might help your mission if you had a church home," he told Obama. "It doesn't matter where, really. What you're asking from pastors requires us to set aside some of our more priestly concerns in favor of prophesy. That requires a good deal of faith on our part. It makes us want to know just where you're getting yours from."
...

The church also helped Obama develop politically. It provided him with new insights about getting people to act, or agitating, that his organizing pals didn't always understand.

[MWB]

I am drawing a conclusion by connecting what we know; a) his job was to enrage the people he was assigned to in order to demonstrate and demand benefits en masse and b) he used black churches to further his political ends.

You're drawing a conclusion based on your own opinions. a) We know he worked for Developing Communities Projects. You're injecting your opinion that he was supposed to enrage people to demand things. b) I don't think it's inflammatory for him to realize that a congregation can facilitate change.

You're picking straws from here and there to try to form a conclusion that suits your needs. Again, this is what pisses me off - when people try to connect a bunch of dots to characterize politicians they don't like in an unfavorable way.

[MWB]

From the same article you cited, GR:

Kruglik remembers this episode as an example of why, in ten years of training organizers, Obama was the best student he ever had. He was a natural, the undisputed master of agitation, who could engage a room full of recruiting targets in a rapid-fire Socratic dialogue, nudging them to admit that they were not living up to their own standards. As with the panhandler, he could be aggressive and confrontational. With probing, sometimes personal questions, he would pinpoint the source of pain in their lives, tearing down their egos just enough before dangling a carrot of hope that they could make things better.

That kind of flies in the face of him telling people to beg the government for handouts. So while it's quant to say that he was riling people up to beg for things, he was doing his own form of agitation, which he defined as, "challenging people to scrape away habit." In fact, he wanted people to fight for job banks - so they could be prepared to get jobs - and asbestos removal - so they wouldn't get cancer.

[GaryRissling]

I am drawing a conclusion by connecting what we know; a) his job was to enrage the people he was assigned to in order to demonstrate and demand benefits en masse and b) he used black churches to further his political ends.

You're drawing a conclusion based on your own opinions. a) We know he worked for Developing Communities Projects. You're injecting your opinion that he was supposed to enrage people to demand things. b) I don't think it's inflammatory for him to realize that a congregation can facilitate change.

You're picking straws from here and there to try to form a conclusion that suits your needs. Again, this is what pisses me off - when people try to connect a bunch of dots to characterize politicians they don't like in an unfavorable way.

He followed the Alinsky method of agitating, and those methods are well-documented!
This isn't ambiguous at all. If you don't think it's important, that's fine, but it it doesn't refute my arguments.

http://www.pickensdemocrats.org/info/Th ... 070319.htm

Not long after Obama arrived, he sat down for a cup of coffee in Hyde Park with a fellow organizer named Mike Kruglik. Obama's work focused on helping poor blacks on Chicago's South Side fight the city for things like job banks and asbestos removal. His teachers were schooled in a style of organizing devised by Saul Alinsky, the radical University of Chicagotrained social scientist. At the heart of the Alinsky method is the concept of "agitation"--making someone angry enough about the rotten state of his life that he agrees to take action to change it; or, as Alinsky himself described the job, to "rub raw the sores of discontent."

[GaryRissling]

From the same article you cited, GR:

Kruglik remembers this episode as an example of why, in ten years of training organizers, Obama was the best student he ever had. He was a natural, the undisputed master of agitation, who could engage a room full of recruiting targets in a rapid-fire Socratic dialogue, nudging them to admit that they were not living up to their own standards. As with the panhandler, he could be aggressive and confrontational. With probing, sometimes personal questions, he would pinpoint the source of pain in their lives, tearing down their egos just enough before dangling a carrot of hope that they could make things better.

That kind of flies in the face of him telling people to beg the government for handouts. So while it's quant to say that he was riling people up to beg for things, he was doing his own form of agitation, which he defined as, "challenging people to scrape away habit." In fact, he wanted people to fight for job banks - so they could be prepared to get jobs - and asbestos removal - so they wouldn't get cancer.

OK now we're getting somewhere...I don't have a problem with job banks, asbestos removal, or grocery stores for the Hill - I have a problem with the methodology of shaking down businesses and government for them.

[MWB]

You left out the part where Obama says it's up to the individual to raise his/her standards and make things better for him/herself. Again, fighting for things like job banks and asbestos removal.... not bad ideas.